On 14/01/2020 10:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.01.2020 11:05, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/01/2020 09:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.01.2020 22:33, Julien Grall wrote:
From: Julien Grall <jgr...@amazon.com>

None of the prototypes within the header asm-x86/irq.h actually requires
the forward declaration of "struct pirq". So remove it.

No functional changes intended.

Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgr...@amazon.com>

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>

It is generally nice to identify if this was missed cleanup (the
need indeed went away in 4.12), or if such has never really been

Yes it is nice to have but this is a best effort basis for cleanup. They
are not fixes and therefore not going to be backported. So I don't feel
the need to browse more than 15 years worth of history and check whether
a cleanup were missed.

15 years? It took me less than a minute (a single grep) to figure
the version this became unnecessary in. And I wouldn't ask for
such on a pretty simple patch like this one if I anticipated a
lot of effort to be needed.

My comment is generic to cleanup... As I said, this is a best effort basis. Maybe I could have done it here, but I didn't feel the need to do it.

What matter for cleanup is the current context and whether they make
sense now.

I disagree. History often helps understand whether something was done
in a certain way without an obvious (from current state of things)

Anyway, I would be happy to add a word in the commit message if you
point me to the commit removing the need.

Me having told you the version it disappeared in would have made this
very low effort to you.
That's pretty much withdrawing knowledge you may have. I don't think this is suitable mindset for a collaborative project. The more you have more knowledge than me on the x86/pirq part.

Anyway, thank you for thinking I put little effort on this patch... That's a pretty great way to encourage people...


Julien Grall

Xen-devel mailing list

Reply via email to